[Milsurplus] Fwd: Re: "Lancaster" - no copilot

[Mark K3MSB]

Sure; variants of the B-17 evolved to meet changing needs.   Why would that
surprise anyone?

The G variant, and I believe the very end run of the F variant, had the
twin 50 caliber guns in the chin turret.   Why wasn't it there before?  Because
they didn't think they'd need it.   The nose turret was added to address
changing Luftwaffe tactics.     Why did the Luftwaffe start increasing head
on attacks?   Because the overlapping defensive fire coordination of large
bomber formations was effective -- except from the frontal region.

The answer to the question of weather daylight precision bombing was
effective is one that has been vigorously debated since the end of WW II.
The answer lies between the extremes of the two positions.

To say that your "poem" accurately represented how aircrews felt about the
B-17 would put the burden of proof squarely upon your shoulders against the
overwhelming testimony of history to the contrary.

73 Mark K3MSb





On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Joe Connor <joeconnor53 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Let's not forget that the B-17 was developed in 1935. At that time, the
> B-17 probably was fast enough to outrun enemy fighters, and was heavily
> armed enough to handle any fighters that got within range. By the start of
> the war and certainly by the time B-17s were deployed in Europe, neither of
> those things was true any longer.
>
> I read somewhere that the early B-17s didn't even have tail guns because
> there was no need for tail guns for a bomber that could outrun than any of
> the fighters that would attack it.
>
> By the way, here's a song I encountered that was sung in the Eighth Air
> Force:
>
> *F**ck the Flying Fortress,*
> *And pray that we abort.*
> *I'd rather be back home*
> *Than in a f**cking Flying Fort. *
>
> *Pity the poor tail gunner*
> *His space is mighty sparse,*
> *And when the landing gear retracts,*
> *He gets it up the arse. *
>
>                 Joe Connor
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:27 PM, Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ken --
>
> I found the following:  “There were two dangerous and connected fallacies
> underlying Bomber Command's confidence in it's ability to win the war
> through such a campaign of bombing. The first was the belief that escorted
> bombers could survive in daylight against fighter defenses by using their
> multiple guns, mutual fire-support between aircraft, and their speed. Even
> in July 1939 this policy was being questioned by the Commander-in-Chief of
> the bomber force, Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt. Gunners, he noted, “have no real
> confidence in their ability to use this equipment [powered turrets]
> effectively, and captains and crews have little confidence in the ability
> of the gunners to protect them”....Even though some officers blamed the
> losses on poor formation-keeping and flak rather than fighters – Harris, by
> January 1940 in command of 5 group, still believed after these losses that
> three bombers in company “considered themselves capable of taking on
> anything” - the fact that daylight operations were near suicidal was slowly
> driven home” “ From “AVRO Lancaster by Bill Sweetman
> Looking from the other side though,  the British did not employ the large
> formations that the USAAF did.    The large formations did provide better
> defensive / overlapping fire cover than occurred with a three ship formation
> The British got their hats handed to them when they tried to use the B-17C
> in an offensive capacity.   Not only was the delivered C model (the British
> called it "Fortress I") not suitable for combat,  they did not employ the
> suggested large formations - because they didn't have enough planes.  Aside
> from this causing the British to incorrectly conclude that the B-17 was an
> inferior bomber, the results reinforced their belief that daylight bombing
> was too costly.   Good discussion of this in "Flying Fortress" by Edward
> Jablonski.
> 73 Mark K3MSB
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Kenneth G. Gordon <
> kgordon2006 at frontier.com> wrote:
>
> On 4 Oct 2017 at 12:27, Mark K3MSB wrote:
>
> > My point was that I don't think the Lancaster was developed as a night
> > bomber;  it transitioned to that role as a result of the loss rate for
> > daylight bombing.
>
> From my reading, that is absolutely true.
>
> Ken W7EKB
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/ antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20171004/8eb9ffe6/attachment.html>